'Saving Silverman' 79
Ever since Hollywood discovered that teens and young adults were the nation's prime moviegoers, writes and directors have aimed at them squarely. The trend goes as far back as the Frankie-and-Annette beach movies. We've seen the prominent John Hughes flick's of the 80's -- Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club -- and more recently -- the much-superior Farrelly Brothers offerings. There were some good moments in Cruel Intentions and Election. The Naked Gun and Police Academy movies were sometimes hilarious, especially the first few.
There are classics (of the form) like Clueless and American Pie, and the occasional success aimed at both teens and young adults, like Something About Mary. The Scream trilogy was creepy, culturally self-aware and unswervingly satirical.
But quality varies: Save The Last Dance, a huge box -office hit, takes an awfully saccharine look at interracial dating, but manages to be mildly interesting. The semen-in-the-hair-scene in Something About Mary elevated gross to an art form, setting a standard it's hard to top.
Sugar and Spice, on the other hand, a clumsy effort at a cheerleader spoof released a couple of weeks ago, was simply pitiful and inane.
A hallmark of teen movies, especially guy ones, is that because it's the much-abused nerds who grow up to become filmmakers, those who are straight, conservative, attractve or popular get raked mercilessly and continuously.
One of the more successful teen subgenres is the "Dumb Buddy" movie epitomized in the modern era by Wayne's World, Animal House, and of course, the legendary late great TV series Beavis & Butthead, one of the bitterest attacks ever on the primary traits of male adolescence and on authority in general. Their unique spirits live on all over the Web.
Like them, Saving Silverman is profoundly stupid and pointless. A requirement of the Dumb Buddy movie is that it be offensive, generally via obligatory toilet jokes and gross-out scenes. Stars Jason Biggs, Steve Zahn, and Jack Black (who was apparently born funny, but isn't at his best here), are all eminently likeable, their unflappable good humor and haplessness pulling the story along, and the movie has four or five truly funny moments -- especially when the three perform together in their Neil Diamond tribute band. Diamond, a good sport in this movie, pops up several times and subjects himself to good-natured ridicule in ways most pop celebrities wouldn't.
In some ways, these guys are the friends we all wish we'd had. In other ways, we're relieved we don't. Biggs plays his usual role -- the decent, bumbling, horny guy (Darren Silverman this time) pining for somebody to love. Helped along by his doofy, hapless pals -- Wayne (Zahn) is a pest control worker, while J.D. (Black) can't keep a job at a Subway franchise -- Silverman finds his special someone in Judith (Amanda Peet).
Bad choice. Judith is a bitchy, controlling psychologist who sees Silverman as her puppet, herself the "puppet-master." Even worse, she reads books. "Don't make me be taking away your masturbating privileges," Judith warns Darren at one point when he dares to defy her.
The first thing she does is forbid Silverman to see his buddies on pain of losing all sexual privileges. This doesn't sit well with Wayne and J.D., who resent her manipulation of Silverman, her nasty treatment of them, and want to reunite him with his first and true love Sandy (Amanda Detmer), who is about to enter a convent. So the band decides to kidnap Judith, though she's a martial arts whiz. You can already foresee some of the sight-gag possibilities. here. The movie is strange, because it frequently turns mean-spirited. No matter how you play it, kidnapping and running people over just isn't that funny. And unless you're 12, the butt-implant operation will make you upchuck your Twizzlers.
One thing the Dumb Male Buddy movies show is that humor varies wildly, according to age and gender. Critics and adults will shriek (and not with laughter) at some of the stuff in this movie, but if you watch the kids in the theater, they will definitely be laughing. Humor hits people differently, something snooty and self-righteous critics of movies ought to keep in mind.
The movie makes no sense, of course. Silverman is the last guy on earth that a girl like Judith would spend five seconds with, and even the most loyal pals wouldn't go to the insane lengths Wayne and J.D do to keep them from hooking up. But Dumb Buddy movies are allowed to suspend the rules of reality. You're not going for coherence or realism, are you?
Dumb buddy movies exist to deal with scatological humor, adolescent security insecurity, jokes about who's gay, who's got the most testosterone, glimpses of breasts, other sexual sub-themes. Saving Silverman runs true to form, but on the low end of the spectrum.
The funny thing is, teen movies ought to be completely boring and annoying, but somehow, they aren't. Critics trash them, serious filmmakers shun them, intellectuals and serious people wouldn't dream of wasting 105 minutes on a movie like this. But hell, I didn't have a bad time. If you've already seen all the good stuff -- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Snatch, Shadow Of The Vampire, The Pledge and You Can Count On Me -- then go for it. But take your buddy along, not your girlfriend.
Re:This is slashdot - How can you say this ? (Score:1)
Re:Not sure about that.. (Score:1)
On your end.. (Score:1)
I've posted four or five replies but there are already more than 40 posts..your settings, maybe..others are seeing them all..
Not sure about that.. (Score:1)
Can't honestly say there's a correlation between talent and those places in all cases..besides I like writing for
Metatroll.. (Score:1)
I was called a metatroll on a site recently, and it rocked me....shook me up in more ways than the poster knew..
Learning about trolls.. (Score:1)
Learned a lot about trolls this week, I have to say..this is also helpful, as it fits with a valentin'e's day column..
Re:Not sure about that.. (Score:1)
Well, I do actually enjoy most teen movies, despite having passed my teenage a long time ago. The main reason is that they seldom require a deep analysis, but can rather just be enjoyed even when you're a bit tired. Of course, there are exceptions: there are definitely teen-movies that do require (or at least encourage) some thought, and for that matter, are suitable to bring a date to; for instance Dead Poets' Society (a personal favourite of mine; partly because Robin Williams really ACTS rather than overacts in this movie.
Of course, you can seldom accuse the actors in the teen-movies of excelling themselves when it comes to acting (think Clueless or Drive Me Crazy, for instance...), but there are exceptions here too (again, Dead Poets' Society) and 10 Things I Hate About You.
And, come to think about it, why even complain about the simplistic storylines of the teenflicks? It's not like they attempt to be deep; no hidden pretensions.
Re:What is your preference Jon? (Score:1)
You know, if you really *do* dislike all the Jon Katz-features, why not simply use your personal Slashdot-preferences; "Exclude stories from Slashdot: Authors", and you'll never have to read another story by him.
No. You are worng. (Score:1)
It's so annoying to read through the comments nowdays. If a tenth of them are actually discussing the story, that's a good day. No, instead we have trolls, and the "not news for nerds" people and the general whining of the crowd.
I really wish the folks on Slashdot would mature a little discussion could actually happen, but that probably to mcuh to ask
Avoid It. (Score:1)
"Hey, maybe we should make this movie goofy slapstick hilarious fun?" "No, lets make it a serious comedy" "Ok, how about this, I'll shoot half the movie my way, you shoot half the movie your way, and we'll just slap it all together" "Cool Beans"
...and so I sat through that P.O.S. movie. Bah...
Re:Avoid It. (Score:1)
nerds dont watch movies (Score:1)
Re:Avoid It. (Score:1)
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
Isn't it interesting that... (Score:1)
Intellectuals? He liked it?
What irony! Urg! Can ya feel it? Can ya feel it?!
-------
CAIMLAS
Wow, poor Jon (Score:1)
Dudeman
The movie ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Saving Silverman sucked (Score:1)
I saw Hanibal last night instead... (Score:1)
Re:Didn't see that coming... (Score:1)
Oh please - one film in the last 10 years? How about anything by the farley brothers? I could name many many others - you're either an idiot or being purposefully obtuse.
Re:Didn't see that coming... (Score:1)
This statement you made is so outrageous that it has to be either some kind of manipulative rhetoric or the symptom of a seriously deluded mind - hence my original idiot comment. Let me be clear - I am not angry with you or trying to insult you in any other way than to say that what you have written is complete and utter bullshit.
You claim there is no "X". I clearly demonstrate that yes, there is some non-zero amount of X, and instead of re-evaluating your position upon which the claim that there is no "X" rests, you move the goal posts, use slight of hand arguments to side step the fact that I have shown your claim to be wrong.
The rest of your arguments may or may not stand up to scrutiny, but until you can admit that your are wrong about this one thing, I really don't owe you any argumentation on your additional points.
There are many movies out there which challenge your claim and your notion that all of hollywood is controlled by liberals who only put out movies supporting the so-called liberal agenda. You admit this is a weak way when say:
I listed 3 specific movies and a whole class of movies in general that demolish your claims. I am no movie expert, but it was easy in the 10 or so minutes I devoted to replying to you to think of these movies. Perhaps you choose to see the wrong type of movies? How can you call yourself a libertarian and at the same time take exception to the fact that America has voted with its dollars to support movies that go against your notions of political decency?
I will be the first to agree that most of what comes out of hollywood is complete and utter garbage. It's garbage on many more levels than the single problem you cite (if true) that they categorically avoid insulting anyone but those with your particular political leanings: writing is horrible, originality is scarce, acting is frequently poor, and the movies are infused with product placements. Yet I love good movies, I seek out good movies, with a little effort I find good ones or at least ones with enough redeeming qualities to be watchable, and I recommend those to others. Perhaps you should be more discriminating in what you watch? Hollywood doesn't owe you movies you agree with, hollywood will make movies people go to watch.
This brings up another problem I have with what your writings. IMO, movies are (or rather can be) a very distinct and powerful form of art. Crappy movies that I've been talking about up until this point hardly qualify, but the beauty of the cinema is the rare gem that is a work of art. Art shocks. Art challenges. Art sometimes scares. Art is creative - by definition something new - something changed from what you already have. A copy of a Picasso is not art. A painting that uses a copy-cat style of a Picasso is not art. What I am trying to say (in the most long-winded way possile) is that if we consider movies to be art at all, we must accept that they must be creative, must involve new things, changes, challenges to our notions of normalcy and decency. In a word - art is liberal. Perhaps you've heard the term"liberal arts"?
Of course, one can not separate "art" and "politics". So yes, a hacking hollywood will likely be liberally biased - both in the traditional sense of the word and as a political barometer reading. But many artists (or so called artists ;) ) are conservative in other parts of life. You can't be conservative artist, but you can be an artist that is conservative politically, financially, socially, religiously, etc. Arnold Schwarzneger and Charlton Heston are a couple names (perhaps artists) that come to mind as conservative cardre in the Hollywood Corps.
However, I refuse to accept your claim that the Media in general is liberally biased. From my point of view, the media is incredibly balanced - there are sources that lean both ways. Furthermore, most of the media would value a good story over any political leanings they might have. How do you rectify the amount of coverage that the Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky affair received with the notion that the Media is liberal? Should not have the media have turned a blind eye, ignored the situation, etc? There were many media defenders of Clinton - but everyone covered the case - every last sordid detail - and there were just as many attackers as defenders, in my view.
I am sorry you think most actors are stupid. That may or may not be true, I might even suspect it, but I doubt you have reason to know the truth of that claim with any certainty. How many successful actors have you met, high school theater members aside? Actors, I am sure, have many flaws, but If you think that makes them special among your fellow americans, you are seriously deluded. Who cares how fast they lose all their money?
My final thought is in response to your claim that:
My main problem with conservativism as it is manifests itself in this country is the "us vs. them" mentality portrayed. Many people have more complex politcal beliefs that merely convserative vs. liberal, or democratic vs. republic, yet the conservative mantra's seems to be it's "us" versus everyone else. Liberal is not a dirty word. Repeat that 20 times. Liberal is not a dirty word. You have been brainwashed. Repeat it 20 more times. Liberal is not a dirty word. Change can be good, must be considered, and in the end, is unavoidable. Logic is important. So is emotion. In the words of the band Live -
"This is not a black and white world - to be alive, the colors must swirl."
Re:Flaws with Conservativism (Score:1)
However
How-ever
- in all likelyhood, your views will become more tempered as you grow older in the so-called real world. This is just the effect of experience and maturity. It happened to me - it happened to almost everyone I know.
As far as your rebuttal to the previous poster's point about polital leanings vs. education level - 2 things:
1. based on the information in your webpage, I don't think you qualify. No insult intended. ;)
2. Look at the exit poll data for the last presidential election. Look at the numbers as they go from HS education, to college education, to masters degree, then to PhD and higher. I don't know if that means anything, but the previous poster was right. People can call themselves whatever they want (and only 51%? come on, that's hardly a convincing number), but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
Much of the rest of what you wrote frankly scares me, but I need to go to bed.
Another day my young conservative (alas) friend.
Re:Flaws with Conservativism (Score:1)
The other poster to which you were responding is someone I certainly don't want to defend. Yet in your response, you made one claim that can be easily be rebuked. As in my original foray into this disucussion, I chose that one claim to rebut.
And again, as in your first response to me, you have chosen to ignore the factual rebutal of your very distinct claims and to instead concentrate on dishing out more even more tangential rhetoric.
Let me repeat this futile exercise with you again; the claim you make upon which the indignation of your entire latest response rests is this:
Yet any casual observer can see that this claim is clearly wrong. It is the height of arrogance to assume that you can make such a bold claim, and then proceed to chastise me based on that claim, when the world can see that my reply consisted of more than what you claim. Further, the world can see that I dealed with your more relavent (to me) post in more length in another post, yet you chose to repond not to that one, but to the one that ends saying that I am about to retire for the night.
Sure, I only brought up one other point in this post, but how much easier would it have been for you to deal with the one directy claim I make and than proceed to trash me? It would have been easy for you indeed.
My entire interest in discussing this issue with you is impressing upon you that if the world view you espouse rests upon outrageous claims you can't support, you should either
I find it interesting that my start in this thread involed listing movies that counter a very distinct and quantifiable claim you made, yet you haven't said much about the movies I have listed. Do you just take my word for it, or have you seen them, or have you read about them, or does my list of movies have no bearing on your rhetorical goals at this point? I am very curious.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I would appreciate that we start where the slashdot article did - with the movies. The gay-loving, attractive-bashing, republican-hating, evil liberal conspiracy can wait for another day, as far as I am concerned.
Have a nice day
Scotch
Re:indicative of the genre (Score:1)
He wants so bad to make slashdot a movie review site - most of what he writes can surely be considered "Off Topic" to slashdot now.
Re:Didn't see that coming... (Score:1)
Go back and read your original claim that I addressed. You said no movies insult gays, liberals, or the ugly, when they clearly do. Why should the use of humor disqualify those movies?
I can't tell you about a "cinema movement against homosexuals", but why should there by one? How would that balance things out for you? Is there a cinema movement against heterosexuals? Yet homosexual characters are frequently used as the butt of jokes, or their behavior is stereotyped, but those insults don't count with you?
I've never seen "the contender" (but I could have been one) - I read the summary from IMDB - and it doesn't say anything about the point of the movie being to demonize republicans for their desire to carry out the law. Gary oldman played a detestable republican, so why take that personally? Have you ever seen "Hurly Burly" (last 10 years)? The characters in that movie are hollywood film people, clearly liberal (though not politicians), and also clearly detestable.
Here's another movie that challenger your claim: "Citizen Ruth" that's a movie that takes a politicaly polarizing issue - abortion - and evenly attacks people on both side of the issue - that movie was made in 1996.
You say that political good guys are always democrats. I disagree - I think more often than not both the good guys and the bad guys are not identified with either party. Regarding this comment:
Ugly people are made fun of all the time in real life and in the movies. Almost every stupid high-school movie ever made has some throwaway characters that is a nerd or ugly or awkward and the only purpose of the character if for a few laughs.
I have heard many people who talk about "the liberal establishment" in hollywood or the "liberal media", but they never seem to be able to back up their claims. The "liberal media" meme is just a conservative demon. The truth of the matter is that there is media in the US that is conservative and media that is liberal, the balance of which nicely reflects the distribution of politcal thought of people in this country. Guess what? I have one more insult for you: political parties are for idiots
Re:The funny thing is... (Score:1)
Re:zzzz.. (Score:1)
psxndc
Re:The funny thing is... (Score:1)
Re:Not sure about that.. (Score:1)
Re:Saving Silverman (Score:1)
topic?? (Score:1)
So what the hell do you take us for??
I mean, come on! It's usually not a good strategy as a journalist to insult your readership!
Why would you even waste your time reviewing a movie like this for a site like Slashdot? The few people on here who DO go to movies like this will go despite the negative reviews, the rest of us take one look a the trailer and move on to something a little more intellectually stimulating.
Hannibal would have been a better choice, though personally I'm boycotting the MPAA....
-the wunderhorn
indicative of the genre (Score:1)
Re:Dilamer. Movie looks bad, But Katz is an idiot. (Score:1)
Bill and Ted (Score:1)
That's how I remember it. Mind you I was stoned for most of the 80's so it could be an hallucination.
you're at +2 (Score:1)
Re:Port the slashcode to an entertainment site ple (Score:1)
Time to read the header again. From here, it says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Let's break that down. This movies may be for nerds. I saw it yesterday, and it sucks. So part 1 of the slogan applies. Part 2: Stuff that matters. In the USA, entertainment has been elevated to this category, so we'll have to deal with that. As for your comment, I don't see anything about technology in the header. Also, this is not your personal site, but you are free to setup your preferences to ignore the movies category altogether. Read the faq, and quit yer bitchin'.
We always knew he was a troll, but... (Score:1)
btw, anyone else notice this Nazi/IBM stuff [sunday-times.co.uk] in the sunday times (uk).
Re:zzzz.. (Score:1)
Re:Definitely true..major oversight. (Score:1)
This is all a tried and tested formula - Straight Man, Funny Man. Most incarnations we see these days are direct reworkings of the classics with more liberal content. I think the Three Stooges offer the only original take on the genre - or maybe they just scared off the imitators.
You do tend to see soooo many comedians these days that are only half the act and as the result they Carrey around the place as the straight man AND funny man. Also a reflection of the times - rampant egotism and inability to share the spotlight. Very often the audience is one half the act (something Kaufman did brilliantly).
These days we're "keeping it real".... all the way to the bank (where is the review of the new Chris Rock movie - looks like it stinnnks).
A lot of people sure dislike Jon Katz (Score:1)
We ask our new intern to research new ways to make fun of Jon Katz [ridiculopathy.com]L
We'll do anything for a few hits. [ridiculopathy.com]
Port the slashcode to an entertainment site please (Score:1)
Re:I fail to see... (Score:1)
JK (Score:1)
Re:Bill and Ted (Score:1)
Saving Silverman, which I saw this afternoon, I also found very enjoyable. I went in expecting a juvenile flick with lots of lowbrow humor, and I was not disappointed. I laughed, I rolled my eyes, I walked out feeling like I got my money's worth.
~Philly
Re:Damn yes, blame the consumers! (Score:1)
maybe try not to be so melodramatic.
we all know most hollywood is kinda shit, but just go out watch american pie and laugh because it's funny.
half the posts so far have been from joe b. consumer talking about goat sex (surprisingly not about gay head, though), but you know you're not them. that's ok.
i'm not like them, but i can enjoy a stupid movie once in a while. people are getting to be too serious these days. one of my mottos is: "who cares."
Dear Jon Katz (Score:1)
I feel that it is my responsibility to write you this letter now. In the past, I have flamed your movie reviews on sundays with happiness. You replied to me that
"you can see from the posts that some people agree with my POV, and some don't. You really think that's bad? That you should only read posts that agree with you, critics that feel the same way you do?"
Well, I must say that the posts that agree with your POV are quickly dying out while the anti-katz posts are gaining steam. This saddens me since I love to review movies. I would love to see an open discussion of movies continue in the slashdot features. The idea of a weekly feature section on current movies, written by intelligent slashdot authors for slashdot readers is a great help for slashdot movie-goers.
However, the flames in this thread for Jon Katz are getting much too loud. I can't tell if my post got modded up because it was any good, or because it was the only one that didn't involve anal rape by Mr. Katz.
I hope that Slashdot will do something to correct this problem and keep the movie reviews going.
Sincerely,
roberjo
Flaws with Conservativism (Score:1)
Thank you very much for that insightful comment on the personal leanings of the Hollywood establishment. Of course Hollywood has liberal leanings, so do the majority of people who are fed up with senators like the one played by Gary Oldman in 'The Contender', who go around trying to dig up dirt from private lives in order to satisfy some politcal goal. If you think that his character is far from the truth, then you need to catch up on your CSPAN viewing!
What really upsets me is your conservative take on American Beauty. American Beauty's message is that true happiness comes from being true to yourself, not from trying to conform to some made up image of the Nuclear Family. Happy mom, happy dad, happy daughter all eating dinner together, not saying what they are feeling, not doing what they love. That is maddness. The only happy people in the neighborhood are the homosexual couple who are being true to themselves. The unhappy people are the ones who try to be what they aren't. American Beauty does not try to make broad definitions of sexual preference as an indicator of psychotic actions.
And what about Dogma? You should have been all for this movie! It actually works on the premise that God exists. Albeit that its view of God is one that is not based in the conservative view of an omnipotent father who wants us to execute Copernicus for suggesting that the earth is not the center of the universe. Rather, Dogma wants you to consider the fact that God wants us to enjoy his/her creation and stop worrying about the effect of science on your belief system. Don't waste your time persecuting others when you should be living a full and happy life, like God wants you to.
So what is so wrong with being conservative? Tons of things. Conservativism is a closed-minded view of the world. Conservatism's form of currency is NOT logic. Come on!! Take a look at the 'head-in-the-sand' viewpoint that conservatives take on the theory of evolution, or the idea that you can 'catch' homosexuality, or on the view of educating kids about birth control.
Have you seen many polls of political leanings? They show that with higher education comes an increased tendency towards liberal viewpoints. Why is that? Why is it that the un-educated farmer with 6 kids who goes to church every sunday is the one who always votes conservative, and always funds Pat Buchanon, the NRA, and anyone who can find Adam and Eve's remains? And why is it that the average person who recieves a higher education almost always has a liberal leaning? Is it because they use emotion for currency? Probably not. Its probably because they have had their mind's broadened by education and refuse to close them again. Let's look at some other conservatives who didn't like the theories being taught in schools and who didn't like mass media pointing out flaws in the government. You might know them as National Socialists from Germany, or you might know them as the Spanish Inquisition, or you might know them as Rush Limbaugh.
The point that I am trying to make is that conservativism is flawed due to its inability to accept change. (When was the last time a conservative scientist discovered something new?) I am not trying to say that Liberalism is THE best and THE only way. I would just like to say that it is open to new ideas and new arguments like we should all be.
Re:Dilema. Movie looks bad, But Katz is an idiot. (Score:1)
I too thought that Saving Silverman looked like a banal piece of kiddie film. However, don't worry. Its got Jack Black. Its funny as hell.
Go see it. You know that if Katz says its stupid, you are going to enjoy it. =)
Re:Obligatory gross-out? (Score:1)
I don't know about you, but Mike Myers dancing around in his underwear was just about gross enough for me.
Re:Learning about trolls.. (Score:1)
Dilema. Movie looks bad, But Katz is an idiot. (Score:1)
crappy movie, crappy review (Score:1)
Re:Didn't see that coming... (Score:1)
If you are having an open discussion of why we are discussing this topic (teen movies, or "Saving Silverman for those not paying attention), I think it's great... Even if I do disagree about this not being an "appropriate" topic for slashdot
One thing that does annoy me is how many personal flames (and there ain't really any other term for it) JonKatz gets when he posts
Sure his posts don't seem to be about technical issues, they're more sociological about how life affects us, and this includes these types of movies (maybe not Saving Silverman itself), but others of these movies can and do reflect what our lives are like (though in an extremely abstract sort of way)
Ok, now that I have gotten off my horse and finished _my_ rant about what I see as being the un-slashdot behaviour here (10 points to those who can spot the irony)...
As to these teen movies... ummm... I really don't have anything constructive to say, other than that as a self convicted techie I personally get great enjoyment out of watching these types of movies, maybe it's the chance to switch off that part of my mind which is excited and agitated over tech stuff, or maybe it's a chance to laugh at the exagerrated idiotic behaviour of those who are not techies (I know stereotyping)...
Either way as a techie I find most of these type of movies enjoyable (especially the latest Coen brother one [which ain't exactly in this category but..] called 'Brother, Where art thou' [I think])... and so where better to discuss these type of movies with others??
Any way I've been making enough lack of sense now, so back to your regular viewing... *grin*
Re:Didn't see that coming... (Score:1)
Very good points (and by the by thanks for responding in an intelligent matter)... I personally think that a weekly movie review is a good idea for slashdot, as it gives us geeks a chance to review movies from our perspective (as opposed to critic perspective, or...)
Now as to this week choice of a movie to review?? To be honest I don't think it's the most 'ideal' movie to review given the audience. However take the specific genre and there are technical aspects (albeit ridiculous) for example Bill and Ted's... the whole time travel concept
Though I think everyone would agree that's stretching it a bit too far. Myself I'd be more interested in a discussion of whether or not these movies are worth seeing. In the sense that they are not (nor do most of them pretend to be) intelligent or to force you to think about any kind of meaningful issue.
They are quite simply pure entertainment, they may not be everyone's ideal form. But you generally just sit there switch of your mind and laugh.
Back briefly on topic (and relating it to slashdot) the reason I think this is a valid topic here is: to answer the question, why do intelligent, artistic (add your own quality terms) people want to and enjoy watching these movies that do not in any way improve them as human beings??
Anyways, hope that made some sense...
Re:Explanations and Disclaimers (Score:1)
I imagine that the fellow pictured did not survive very long and is one of the "dead homoz" you suggest be given "props" in the "FP".
Re:I fail to see... (Score:2)
Re:nothing but jonkatz on jonkatz (Score:2)
Can't... (Score:2)
...get a real job, as ought to be obvious..But never blame the consumers?
Highly recommended teen-movie "Show Me Love" (Score:2)
A teen-movie that completely avoids the usual type 1A Hollywood script for teenflicks is "Show Me Love" (or "Fucking Åmål", as the original, Swedish, title is); quite understandable, as it's not a Hollywood movie in the first place. Because the movie isn't in English, it might be hard to get by in the US (and indeed, most of the world), but if you do, it's definitely worth seeing. I know that there is a subtitled version available. IMDB entry here [imdb.com].
Different genre and style (Score:2)
Re:Not sure about that.. (Score:2)
Re:Avoid It. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:topic?? (Score:2)
I would be very suprised if the single largest group of
Just look at the posts for this story (browse at -1) if you want proof....
Alright, here we go. (Score:2)
I enjoy slashdot. I read it daily. I'm not a Linux nut, and some aspects of the tech information go over my head. That's fine. I expect that. I enjoy the pop-tech news, the neat gadgets, and industry news from both the linux and non-linux sides. I even enjoy the occasional movie review of a tech themed movie.
But "Saving Silverman"? I know it's sunday morning here, and there's not much else going on. But I can read movie reviews anywhere. This isn't even a tech themed film - just as Jon described, it's a dumb buddy movie - anyone going to see it pretty much knows what to expect. I'm glad Jon chimed in with all sorts of pop culture references to make his review look like a college essay. That's great. I majored in American Popular Culture in college. I wrote a lot of papers describing the social spects of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and the implications of the future in Blade Runner. But I wouldn't post either of those to
While this post isn't unique, I hope Jon reads it: I enjoy your writing style and the points you have to make on most things. But the TV ads, Roger Ebert and my college pop culture classes taught me all I need to know about dumb buddy movies, thanks.
The Good Reverend
Obligatory gross-out? (Score:2)
Then I guess neither Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure nor Wayne's World were Dumb Buddy movies? Both were really funny without any toilet humor or gross-out scenes.
steveha
Bah (Score:2)
Way to troll. (Score:2)
It's been done (Score:2)
This is slashdot - How can you say this ? (Score:2)
This is slashdot. Its readers have neither "buddies" or "girlfriends".
And why the homophobic attitude ? At least one in 10 slashdot readers prefers not to have any luck with a member of the same sex.
And at least one in 100 is female.
Jon Katz the mentor (Score:2)
Jon Katz, your brilliance and talent cannot be understated, please do not let us languish without another piece of magic from your pen? I want more insights into the world of privacy, sociology and the soul... I could do without the movie reviews.
Please Jon Katz, I love you so much, please hear my plea. Please? Are you out there?
--
You can't imagine how much I really do love Jon Katz.
Definitely true..major oversight. (Score:3)
Yes, you are dead on..Spade is right up there, as was in Search of Farley..
Actually good point about Martin and Lewis..they were buddy movies, but skewed much older...more slapstick comedy, less settings in real life (relatively)
Saving Silverman review (Score:4)
Saving Silverman (Score:5)
I don't know how Katz does it, but every sunday he reviews the exact same movie that I had gone to see. I only see one movie per weekend so it is kinda creepy.
Anyway, I saw Saving Silverman this weekend and I have to say that I haven't laughed out loud at a movie that hard since American Pie. Sure it was based on absolutely silly plot twists, but what I found redeeming about it was that it didn't try to rectify or explain the idioicy. Instead, it embraced stupidity with a wholehearted bliss. Nothing in the movie is meant to be taken seriously. I mean come on, the Nun factor was completely random and entertaining (lets bust out some power squats!).
To me, it seemed that this movie was completely outside of reality. It seems to be written from an adolescent boy's subconscious. All of his fears: marrying a psychotic psychologist, discovering that he's gay, being fired from subway, having coach shit in your yard, all of these are caricatures of fear, and damn funny at that. I will admit that the movie had some obvious crutches at points (the way silverman and sandy fall in love for no reason, when he jogs 30 miles to the convent to get sandy and she just up and forgives him, etc.) that show obviously bad editing/writing, however, I am willing to suspend my critic's hat for an hour to roll on the floor at cursing nuns and Neil Diamond.
The only thing I hated about this movie, was the two rows of 13 year olds behind me. Jeezus.
One more thing, at the end, did you notice that the movie ended but noone got up to leave? I was seriously getting weirded out. The credits were rolling, Neil Diamond was singing, but noone in the theater moved to leave. Crazy.